Like during satisfaction, we also need to avoid deferring access checks
during substitution of a requires-expr because the outcome of an access
check can determine the value of the requires-expr. Otherwise (in
deferred access checking contexts such as within a base-clause), the
requires-expr may evaluate to the wrong result, and along the way a
failed access check may leak out from it into a non-SFINAE context and
cause a hard error (as in the below testcase).
PR c++/107179
gcc/cp/ChangeLog:
* constraint.cc (tsubst_requires_expr): Make sure we're not
deferring access checks.
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* g++.dg/cpp2a/concepts-requires31.C: New test.
{
local_specialization_stack stack (lss_copy);
+ /* We need to check access during the substitution. */
+ deferring_access_check_sentinel acs (dk_no_deferred);
+
/* A requires-expression is an unevaluated context. */
cp_unevaluated u;
--- /dev/null
+// PR c++/107179
+// { dg-do compile { target c++20 } }
+
+template<bool B> struct bool_constant { static constexpr bool value = B; };
+
+template<typename T>
+ struct is_implicitly_default_constructible
+ : bool_constant<requires { T(); }>
+ { };
+
+struct X { private: X(); };
+struct Y { };
+
+static_assert( !is_implicitly_default_constructible<X>::value );
+static_assert( is_implicitly_default_constructible<Y>::value );